Contingent Weighting in Self-Other Decision Making

Three studies are presented that examine the decision-making processes that lead advisors to have preferences distinct from personal decision makers (Kray & Gonzalez, 1999). Advising and personal decision making were hypothesized to invoke different interpersonal frames, which lead to different weighting of decision attributes. Alternatively, advisors might simply exert less effort in decision making for others than do personal decision makers. In Study 1, the contingent weighting of attributes was examined in two decision-making tasks (choice vs. matching). Advisors were more likely to choose in a manner consistent with "what most people would prefer" than personal decision makers, but no differences in preferences were observed in the matching task. Advisors subsequently reported experiencing less regret and blame and more strongly preferred the chosen alternative than did personal decision makers. In Study 2, advisors considered more decision attributes to be important in the abstract compared to personal decision makers, and the choice pattern of Study 1 was replicated. In Study 3, advisors and personal decision makers generated more considerations when making a decision compared to individuals making decisions in the abstract. Finally, the preferences of personal decision makers were more consistent with their reported attribute importance judgments than were those of advisors. In total, the results suggest advisors incorrectly infer others' preferences, rather than suffer from a deficit of motivation, when giving advice. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.     

Socially motivated projection: Need to belong increases perceived opinion consensus on important issues

In three studies, we tested whether the need to belong would motivate people to perceive consensus for their opinions on important social issues. In Study 1, a nationally representative telephone survey, participants with a high dispositional need to belong perceived greater consensus for their opinions on immigrant naturalization than did those with a low need to belong. However, this relationship was strongest among participants who reported that the issue was personally important to them. In Study 2, participants primed with rejection‐related (versus acceptance‐related) words, and who reported high levels of issue importance, demonstrated greater false consensus for their opinions on a proposed alcohol tax increase. In Study 3, participants who received random feedback that they held a common (versus uncommon) opinion had a lower subsequent need to belong when the issue was important to them, suggesting that consensus perceptions can in fact mitigate belongingness needs. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are risk preferences consistent?: The influence of decision domain and personality

This paper examines the consistency of risk preferences across three decision domains important in most people’s lives: work, health and personal finance. We consider the degree to which the five factor model of personality and a range of factors that influence risk-related decision-making (perceived risk, framing, emotions and cost–benefit analysis) impact upon cross-domain consistency. Data were gathered from a sample of participants for whom approaches to risk were likely to vary (academics, chess players, firefighters, mountaineers and City traders). The results showed that participants could be categorised into two groups: those who were consistent in their risk preferences in three decision domains, and those who were inconsistent or domain-specific. The consistent group was significantly lower on neuroticism and higher on agreeableness and conscientiousness with a less variable approach to weighing up the costs and benefits of taking risks than the inconsistent group. The majority of the consistent group was risk averse.When the domain-specific risk preferences of the inconsistent group were examined, data showed that different combinations of personality and decision-making factors predicted risk preferences within each domain.     

Votes Without Power:Procedural Justice as Mutual Control in Majority-Minority Relations1

In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed “mutual control” (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.     

Does young adults’ preferred role in decision making about health,money, and career depend on their advisors’ leadership skills?

Few empirical data exist on how decision making about health differs from that in other crucial life domains with less threatening consequences. To shed light on this issue we conducted a study with 175 young adults (average age 19 years). We presented the participants with scenarios involving advisors who provided assistance in making decisions about health, money, and career. For each scenario, participants were asked to what extent they wanted the advisor to exhibit several leadership styles and competencies and what role (active, collaborative, or passive) they preferred to play when making decisions. Results show that decision making about health is distinct from that in the other domains in three ways. First, most of the participants preferred to delegate decision making about their health to their physician, whereas they were willing to collaborate or play an active role in decision making about their career or money. Second, the competencies and leadership style preferred for the physician differed substantially from those desired for advisors in the other two domains: Participants expected physicians to show more transformational leadership—the style that is most effective in a wide range of environments—than those who provide advice about financial investments or career. Finally, participants’ willingness to share medical decision making with their physician was tied to how strongly they preferred that the physician shows an effective leadership style. In contrast, motivation to participate in decision making in the other domains was not related to preferences regarding advisors’ leadership style or competencies. Our results have implications for medical practice as they suggest that physicians are expected to have superior leadership skills compared to those who provide assistance in other important areas of life.     

Resource availability hypothesis: Perceived financial and caloric status affect individuals' height preferences for potential partners

Height is an important concern in human mate choices. Prior research indicates that people who live in areas with abundant resources differ from those who live in areas with scarce resources regarding height preferences. Based on a health‐maximizing principle, we propose a resource availability account for such differences. Compared with women's height preferences, men's height preferences are hypothesized to be more dependent on either financial or caloric resource availability. Specifically, taller females would be more preferred by males who are poor in resources than those who are rich in resources. Results from three studies supported these hypotheses. In Study 1, men from remote areas of China who had lower family income preferred taller women more than those from eastern China who had higher family income. In Study 2, men who were financially dissatisfied preferred taller women more than those who were financially satisfied. In Study 3, men with low caloric status preferred taller women more than men with high caloric status. In addition, women's height preferences in Studies 1, 2 and 3 were less determined by resource availability. These findings suggest that height preferences are changeable, depending on financial or caloric status.     

The origins and function of the reference point in risky group decision making the case of the Cuban missile crisis

This case study explores reference level effects on group decision making during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The group is composed of American President John F. Kennedy and his advisers. The results are consistent with much experimental evidence showing that reference levels play an important role in determining preferences. The results also extend the notion of reference-dependent risky choice to the group level, where the group consists of seasoned experts who each have a different role to play within the group and who are dealing with an issue of great importance.     

Effects of Poll Reports on Voter Preferences

Relative strengths of the bandwagon (or rally-around-the-winner) affect and its converse, the underdog effect, were tested. Study 1 was conducted with registered Republicans during 4 days immediately prior to the first major Republican primary of 1996. Bogus poll data showing Dole leading Forbes (or Dole trailing Forbes) were presented to voters who then voted their preference for Dole, Forbes, or neither. Findings showed a significantly greater tendency to vote for Dole over Forbes when the bogus poll showed Dole leading Forbes than when it showed Dole trailing. Thus, results supported the bandwagon effect and, furthermore, showed it as explaining 6% of the variance in voter preferences. In Study 2, participants were given bogus poll data on 2 personally relevant issues and were then asked to vote their preferences on the issues. Participants had extremely strong consensus preferences on one issue and were not influenced by bogus poll data. On the second issue that involved moderately strong consensus preferences, bogus polls significantly affected votes, supporting the bandwagon effect. Bandwagon effects were stronger for women compared with men, and for 2 of 3 PAD (Pleasantness, Arousability, Dominance) basic temperament factors; that is, for individuals with more arousable and less dominant temperaments. Implications for other personality variables were noted.     

Group transformation: How demonstrability promotes intra-group cooperation in social dilemmas

Intra-group cooperation in a social dilemma is increased after a group has discussed and reached a decision, especially if the dilemma is easily understood (‘demonstrable’). This paper examines how demonstrability affects the decision of a group that consists entirely of participants who are initially non-cooperative. Thirty-eight 6-person groups with unanimous prior preference for cooperation or non-cooperation discussed a prisoner’s dilemma before making a group decision. When demonstrability was low groups reflected the prior (either cooperative or non-cooperative) preferences of their members. When demonstrability was high we found that groups showed no effect of prior preference. Specifically, groups of prior non-cooperators made more cooperative group decisions and subsequently their members remained cooperative when asked to express preferences individually. The combined advantages of group process and high demonstrability for facilitating optimal cooperation are discussed.     

Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups

This study examines whether the first group member to advocate a position in the group publically has disproportionate influence on the group decision, and whether group discussion by computer mail or face-to-face determines the extent of the first advocate's influence. Possible explanations of first advocacy influence were tested in an experiment that allowed simultaneous observation of three independent variables: (1) assignment of first advocate (self-selected/randomly assigned), (2) early discussion before advocacy (discussion/no discussion), and (3) mode of communication (face-to-face/electronic mail). It was assumed that a first advocate effect exists if the group choice is closer to the first advocates' stated positions than to the group's average pregroup preferences. An “influence” hypothesis predicts that first advocates who self-select will be closer to the group decision than average pregroup preferences because these are first advocates most likely to persuade other members of the group. A “listening” hypothesis predicts that first advocates who hear an early group discussion will be closer to the group decision than average pregroup preferences because these first advocates are able to anticipate the group decision as a result of listening to what is communicated in group discussion. The results indicated strong support for the “listening” hypothesis. When groups held early discussions before someone advocated a position, the first advocate effect was observed; when groups did not hold early discussions but began their task by having someone advocate a position, there was no first advocate effect. The data suggest that the content and tone of electronic group discussions was qualitatively different from face-to-face group discussions, but the process of group decision making in both conditions was about the same. The implications of these results for group discussion and computer-mediated group decision making in organizations are discussed.     

Choice/Matching Preference Reversals in Groups: Consensus Processes and Justification-Based Reasoning

Individual preferences can vary significantly by the mode in which they are elicited. Thus, the seemingly benign procedural issue of elicitation mode (i.e., choice, buying price, rating, matching) could have a profound effect on group decisions, although elicitation mode has not been much studied as a group procedural variable. Individual preferences differ by elicitation mode when the elicitation contexts differentially emphasize particular aspects of the decision. Emphasis on explainability, for example, may produce decisions that are based only on a few, important, attributes. Because group consensus processes also can encourage particular reasoning strategies, grouping may interact with elicitation mode; that is, group consensus processes may moderate or exacerbate preference reversals. The present study explored a particular elicitation effect, choice versus matching preference reversals, for decisions with both low and high social significance. The results confirmed both that elicitation mode can affect group decisions and that group consensus processes moderate choice/matching preference reversals. Further, evidence from both preference measures and rating scales suggested that the moderation was due to an increase in easily defended, justifiable decisions. Social significance did not affect individual or group decisions, but decreased members′ post group commitment to the group decision. These results have implications both for group decision making and for the study of the role of explanation-based strategies in preference formation.     

Vicarious dissonance: attitude change from the inconsistency of others

Three studies support the vicarious dissonance hypothesis that individuals change their attitudes when witnessing members of important groups engage in inconsistent behavior. Study 1, in which participants observed an actor in an induced-compliance paradigm, documented that students who identified with their college supported an issue more after hearing an ingroup member make a counterattitudinal speech in favor of that issue. In Study 2, vicarious dissonance occurred even when participants did not hear a speech, and attitude change was highest when the speaker was known to disagree with the issue. Study 3 showed that speaker choice and aversive consequences moderated vicarious dissonance, and demonstrated that vicarious discomfort--the discomfort observers imagine feeling if in an actor's place--was attenuated after participants expressed their revised attitudes.     

Openness to attitude change as a function of temporal perspective

Three studies investigated the impact of temporal perspective on people's dominant social goals and explored the implications of these goals for openness to attitude change. Participants who perceived time as limited expressed social preferences in accordance with emotion-regulation goals (Study 1), were more prone to modify their attitude to bring it into line with the attitude of an anticipated social partner (Study 2), and were more likely to go along with peer consensus opinion on a campus issue (Study 3) than were participants who perceived time as expansive. These studies demonstrate that perception of time plays a vital role in motivating social goals within the persuasion context.     

Moving Onwards: An Action Continuation Strategy in Finding the Way

In four studies, we examined people's strategies when deciding between multiple routes of equivalent length in way‐finding tasks. The results reveal the important role of continuing behavior when faced with a choice from multiple viable routes. After affirming the existence of asymmetric preferences for alternatives (Studies 1 and 2), we observed that variations of simple known‐environment mazes supported action continuation as prevailing process over alternative strategies such as preference for long initial path segments, paths with a least deviating angle, and a modified hill climbing strategy (Study 3). Moreover, asymmetric preferences disappeared with the absence of initial behavior to inform subsequent decision making (Study 4). Results are discussed within the context of decision making, navigation strategies, and everyday life path finding. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Car Versus Public Transportation? The Role of Social Value Orientations in a Real-Life Social Dilemma1

This research evaluates the role of social value orientations (i.e., preferences for distribution of outcomes for the self and others) in decisions as how to commute. It was proposed that the commuting situation could be viewed either as an environmental issue, reflecting the decision structure of an N-person Prisoner's Dilemma, or as an accessibility problem, reflecting the decision structure of an N-person Chicken Dilemma. On the basis of interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) it was predicted that people who are primarily concerned with the collective welfare—prosocial individuals—would prefer commuting by public transportation when other commuters were expected to go by public transportation. On the other hand, it was hypothesized that people who are primarily concerned with their own well-being—proself individuals—would prefer commuting by public transportation when others were expected to go by car. The obtained findings were consistent with these expectations. Practical and theoretical implications regarding the link between social value orientations and environmentally relevant behavior will be discussed.     

Cautious Defection: Group Representatives Cooperate and Risk Less than Individuals

Individuals often make decisions that affect groups, yet the propensities of group representatives are not as well understood than those of independent decision makers or deliberating groups. We ask how responsibility for group payoffs—in the absence of group deliberation—affects the choice. The experiment utilizes the Interdependent Security Dilemma paradigm. In its deterministic version, the game is identical to a finitely repeated Prisoner's Dilemma. In the stochastic version, potential losses are larger but uncertain, occurring with a predefined probability when one or both players choose to forgo investment in protection. Participants were assigned to play either as individuals, or as representatives of three‐person groups, with each member's choices equally likely to determine the group's payoffs. In the deterministic condition, individuals were more likely to invest (cooperate) than group representatives (80% vs. 62% of rounds). In the stochastic condition, the pattern was reversed as representatives were slightly, but not significantly, more likely to invest than individuals (46% vs. 40%). The significant interaction effect suggested that group representatives were not only less cooperative but also more risk averse than individuals. A follow‐up study supported this account by showing participants who construed the invest strategy as low‐risk than those who perceived this strategy to be high risk. Overall, group representatives exhibited a tendency to act more competitively and more cautiously than individuals acting alone. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who Takes the Lead in Risky Decision Making? Effects of Group Members' Risk Preferences and Prototypicality

In two experiments, we studied the effects of (a) the extent to which group members are risk seeking in comparison with others in the group and (b) group member prototypicality (the extent to which individuals hold group-typical risk preferences) on the likelihood that group members will take the lead in risky decision making. Participants were led to believe that they engaged in a four-person group discussion and received bogus feedback about their own risk preferences, the risk preferences of the other group members, and the risk preferences of their group as a whole. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated the framing of the decision problem (gain vs. loss frame). Results supported the hypotheses that (a) more risk seeking members are more likely to take the lead and (b) prototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is ambiguous (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are incongruent), whereas nonprototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is relatively clear-cut (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are congruent).     

Vicarious moral licensing: the influence of others' past moral actions on moral behavior

This article investigates the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced behavior on an individual's subsequent behavior. Five studies supported the hypothesis that people are more willing to express prejudiced attitudes when their group members' past behavior has established nonprejudiced credentials. Study 1a showed that participants who were told that their group was more moral than similar other groups were more willing to describe a job as better suited for Whites than for African Americans. In Study 1b, when given information on group members' prior nondiscriminatory behavior (selecting a Hispanic applicant in a prior task), participants subsequently gave more discriminatory ratings to the Hispanic applicant for a position stereotypically suited for majority members (Whites). In Study 2, moral self-concept mediated the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced actions on a participant's subsequent prejudiced behavior such that others' past nonprejudiced actions enhanced the participant's moral self-concept, and this inflated moral self-concept subsequently drove the participant's prejudiced ratings of a Hispanic applicant. In Study 3, the moderating role of identification with the credentialing group was tested. Results showed that participants expressed more prejudiced attitudes toward a Hispanic applicant when they highly identified with the group members behaving in nonprejudiced manner. In Study 4, the credentialing task was dissociated from the participants' own judgmental task, and, in addition, identification with the credentialing group was manipulated rather than measured. Consistent with prior studies, the results showed that participants who first had the opportunity to view an in-group member's nonprejudiced hiring decision were more likely to reject an African American man for a job stereotypically suited for majority members. These studies suggest a vicarious moral licensing effect.     

Compensatory nonconformity: Self-uncertainty and low implicit self-esteem increase adoption and expression of minority opinions

The present studies tested whether people, particularly those who are most vulnerable to self-threats as indicated by low implicit self-esteem, adopt and express minority opinions to compensate for self-uncertainty. In Studies 1 through 3, low implicit self-esteem participants who were made to feel uncertain about themselves as individuals (versus uncertain about a self-irrelevant issue in Study 1, certain about themselves in Study 2, or uncertain about their group memberships in Study 3) expressed more disagreement with others' opinions. Additionally, Study 3 demonstrated that this effect is specific to minority opinions and does not emerge on majority opinions. In Study 4, the relation between self-uncertainty and disagreement with others' opinions was strongest among participants with both low implicit and high explicit self-esteem, who respond to self-threats in particularly defensive ways.     

达者何以兼济天下：高阶层再分配偏向的心理机制及谦卑的作用

一些欧美研究发现高阶层者与低阶层者相比再分配偏向更低, 但是这一结论尚缺少跨文化一致性的证据, 而且对于这一现象的心理机制和干预策略的探讨也相对不足。基于此, 本研究通过3个子研究分别来关注我国民众再分配偏向的阶层差异及其心理机制, 并探讨可能的干预策略。结果发现：(1)与西方社会的情形相似, 在中国社会高阶层者的再分配偏向也显著低于低阶层者; (2)社会阶层对再分配偏向的影响, 部分是通过贫富差距归因倾向起作用的：与低阶层者相比, 高阶层者更倾向于将贫富差距归因于能力、努力、志向或抱负等个体内部因素, 进而再分配偏向更低; (3)通过启动高阶层者谦卑的心态, 能够降低其贫富差距内归因倾向, 进而提升其再分配偏向。此结果验证了社会阶层不平等维持模型的重要观点, 同时也为推动社会再分配、促进发展成果共享等提供了一定的社会治理启示。